You're viewing part of a thread.
Color blind hiring policies. We were talking about hiring.
If there are issues not related to the hiring process that make disadvantaged people less qualified, you fix those issues at the source. Ignoring them at hiring just hides the issues making it less likely to be fixed while creating new issues I pointed out.
Besides, what issue is actually not colorblind? Race is basically always a proxy for a different cause. You should not be lazy and identify the real cause, then solve it based on that to ensure people don't fall through the cracks.
France has always been officially colour blind, and they're the most racist and racially i equal country in Western Europe.
Colourblind policies don't help as people in authority's implicit biases get freer reign.
"Badly implemented colorblind policies didn't stop racism in this one country, so let's have explicitly racist policies."
If they are still racist, they are not colorblind. Make stronger colorblind policies and enforce them. Color aware policies don't do anything either if they are only on paper.
Besides, you ignore the point of my criticism. Color aware policies don't prevent inequity, they shift it elsewhere. They keep some places and aspects of life racist while having other be reverse racist. On individual level, the inequity increases, but people pat themselves on the back because when you only look at it based on color, it averages out. It is like saying we should increase the pay of Billionaires to increase average wages. The statistic looks better, but it did not help most people.
Make stronger colorblind policies and enforce them
Any suggestion of such policies and ways to enforce them?
I have general ideas in what direction to look at, but I don't see how I could post them without this inevitably devolving into off-topic discussion of hiring policies.
I think we may be operating on different suppositions, so addressing that rather than wasting time clarifying details about France's choice to never record demographic stats for things would be best.
Do you think systemic racism exists and is a large problem in the USA or France?
Do you think systemic racism exists and is a large problem in the USA or France?
Yes.
OK, we agree on that.
To what extent do you think that implicit or unconscious bias cause visible minority groups to need to have to work harder and be more exceptional to get a position, role, or responsiblity, or a n on-category specified grant, assistance, or similar?
I think it would considerably vary from place to place, even workplace to workplace. In some (rare) places not at all, in some places considerably. I would be entirely guessing if I was to say what the average was.
Replying to this one because newer. Have read and taken the other reply of yours into account too.
I agree that we're off on a vibes and feels thing here because we don't have the data, and obviously it will vary between workplaces and individuals (even if to put systemic issues as individual choice/responsibility just covers for those systemic issues).
We do have data from France showing that their entirely colourblind governance has not helped, despite targeting on socio economic or geographic bounds.
When surely, if colourblind policies would do better at undoing systemic racism, wouldn't France have had better outcomes from them?
Look, I don't know what exactly France did, maybe colorblind measures are not very effective. Maybe France picked stupid ones and implemented them badly. Let's not pretend there is only one way to do colorblind hiring.
But my counter question is this. You say it did not help in France. How do you measure that? If one black person has it much easier while another was not helped at all, is that success? That is what I have issue with. Color-aware policies are extremely likely to just fake the statistics about groups, while if you actually compare random person to random person, it is just as (if not more) unfair as before. I believe it does not create real equity, it just fools statistics.
You should not measure inequity between arbitrary groups. You should measure inequity between individuals to get a reliable metric.
First, maybe this will help fill in as a starter on the French situation.
Secondly, I do agree that targets and statistics inevitably distort and pervert any goals. So it will tend towards failure, but that's government. It never really works, and since I assume we're talking about the system we're in rather than a new one I don't think it's a deal-breaker.
Thirdly, and most pertinently: due to systemic racism/prejudices there is a barrier to various arbitrary socially constructed groups that other arbitrary socially constructed groups do not need to deal with.
By ignoring that there is a barrier to some in the form of systemic prejudice you don't actually help those more discriminated against groups. You just help the arbitrary groups that are less discriminated against. Maybe you have less inequality overall because the discriminated against group is a minority, but I don't think either of us think that that makes it "better".
This is in fact where France has gotten to in its starting to analyse it's own colourblindness.
First, maybe this will help fill in as a starter on the French situation.
So they picked extremely stupid ones, got it.
Secondly, I do agree that targets and statistics inevitably distort and pervert any goals. So it will tend towards failure, but that's government. It never really works, and since I assume we're talking about the system we're in rather than a new one I don't think it's a deal-breaker.
Depends on how much they get "perverted and distorted". It absolutely is a deal breaker if it makes things worse than before.
Thirdly, and most pertinently: due to systemic racism/prejudices there is a barrier to various arbitrary socially constructed groups that other arbitrary socially constructed groups do not need to deal with.
By ignoring that there is a barrier to some in the form of systemic prejudice you don't actually help those more discriminated against groups. You just help the arbitrary groups that are less discriminated against. Maybe you have less inequality overall because the discriminated against group is a minority, but I don't think either of us think that that makes it "better".
I don't think we understand each other. I am not saying we should do nothing. We should try to create policies that enforce color blind hiring, rewarding, etc. E.g. have people evaluate work before knowing whose work it is where possible. I am not saying there can't be any color/gender-aware policies anywhere. I am certainly not saying we should stop collecting statistics and put our heads into the sand. But we shouldn't hire/promote/reward people based on their race/gender in either direction.
How would such a policy even work? You measure by how much is each minority disadvantaged on average and give them advantage by that amount via whatever mechanism? So the individuals that were already treated fairly now have an advantage even compared to the majority, those that were disadvantaged most are still disadvantaged, but a bit less and some random people from the majority are disadvantaged, because hiring is a zero sum game. You arguably did not make the system any more fair. The only good part is that it probably reduces by how much the most disadvantaged people are disadvantaged by.
More importantly, you do nothing to fix the impression people have, that minorities are doing less/worse work, yet show everyone they are treated preferentially. This will cause people from the majority to wonder with every failure, whether it is because of the unfair advantage minorities are given. You can't even try to disprove it, because it is true in some cases. Rare cases perhaps, but very few people would care.
Then act surprised when this creates conscious racists and the majority tells you to fuck off and elects a candidate that cancels DEI initiatives entirely. See the issue?
In a democracy, you will never be able to enact policies that fix subconscious racism without fixing peoples perceptions. You will get voted out. That's why the policies have to be color-blind, even if they are less effective (take longer to work).
And if we are lucky and do the policies well, we may even fix plenty of other biases unrelated to race and gender and eventually have much better results than color-aware.
PS: If you know how to say color-aware and color-blind in a way that includes gender and other minorities, can you let me know? I think you understand what I mean but it still bothers me I am using the wrong word.